Google TV's features seem very promising, but launch hardware may be too …

Share this story

Details about the compatible hardware for Google TV's launch in the next couple of weeks have begun to spill out. Logitech is now accepting preorders for its Revue set-top box, while Sony is expected to launch a line of Google TV-powered Bravia HDTVs sometime this month. What we have seen of the hardware and its pricing so far may not entice many early adopters.

The Logitech Revue is a small set-top box that runs the Android-powered Google TV software. Though it comes with a trackpad-equipped wireless keyboard necessary for Web browsing, the unit sells for $300—far more than the Roku XD|S and Apple TV, which sell for just $99 each. Logitech is also touting additional accessories, including a much smaller Mini Controller as well as a 720p HD webcam that can enable video calling right from the TV.

Logitech is also thankfully offering iPhone and Android apps to let you use your smartphone as a controller. While including the wireless keyboard may make for a better out-of-the-box experience for those that lack a smartphone, it may have been wiser to cut the price and give consumers the option to choose a controller that best suits their needs. (It's not clear, but it seems like devices such as a Bluetooth keyboard, mouse, or trackpad should be compatible.)

Sony is also launching Internet-connected Bravia HDTVs. While official details aren't yet available, Sony Insider turned up model numbers and prices for the purported new displays. They will come in 24", 32", 40", and 46" sizes, but are expected to cost between $1,000-2,000. Sony is also expected to release a set-top box at some point, though the company may instead build Google TV compatibility into upcoming Blu-ray player models (and offers similar, Google TV-type functionality in some current players). No word on pricing or expected release of these devices has yet been revealed.

Aside from the relatively high prices, the controller Sony designed may not garner many fans. A clip of the commercial for Sony's new TVs appeared on ABC's Nightline on Wednesday, revealing the remote controller ostensibly included with these Bravia models. The oversized remote with a tiny QWERTY keyboard looks like a huge, bulky mess, and the design has been widelypanned.

While Google TV looks very promising from a usability perspective, high prices and clunky controllers may not appeal to a wide audience. The on-screen keyboards for devices like the Roku may not be great, but they do work with very simple remotes. And while search is a big part of Google TV's design, it may have been wiser to include a simple remote and offer keyboard options for those that need or want it. With the streaming set-top box market competition already putting downward pressure on prices, these expensive options could hamper early adoption.

105 Reader Comments

Personally, I don't think that Logitech keyboard/controller looks at all bad, though I agree that the Sony controller looks way to clunk. What sucks is the pricing; for $300 you might as well get/build an htpc and have FULL desktop capabilities when you want them. Personally, I'd really enjoy having a TV that I use like my computer, but then I spend an awful lot of time on the computer, and basically no time in front of the TV.

I had originally been hoping for an Ars article as so few of the mainstream media were covering the features (such as the use of the "HDMI in" pin which I had only seen mentioned in passing elsewhere) in depth. Unfortunately, Ars did no better. Thankfully, that info eventually broke elsewhere.

If it had a BD player in it, and worked with cable (rather than just dish, as I believe is currently the case), I would be regretting building my HTPC right now. However, lacking this, my HTPC is still more capable and didn't actually cost me massively more money to build. Still, something streamlined enough to avoid many of the head aches I've had getting this thing up and running would have been hard to pass up.

Apple is a content distributor, the manufacturers of these products are not.

Simply put, Apple can charge for content later, on a platform that basically locks you to using Apple content in the first place. Its like a cell phone carrier subsidizing the cost of a phone knowing you will be paying for their services later.

I'm going to assume Google TV will be a lot more open, and you can bring in your content from pretty much anywhere.

Your still paying for it in the long run with AppleTV.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but this is clearly two distinct marketing techniques here.

Yeah, well, I'm going to go on a limb and say Apple's model is better and that the Author was taking that into account. BTW, Google is a content owner too. They own a little thing called YouTube.

There is an interesting inherent problem with Google TV. Before I get accused of trolling, I say this as a Google fan . It came through during their keynote when they unveiled it. I remember someone talking about browsing the web on a huge screen. Generally people don't want to do this. We tend to best consume information when it's right in front of us.

Think about when someone says something interesting. You lean in. This is a pretty consistent behavior across cultures.

Google is approaching the TV as a huge frickin' web browser (TM), when in reality, it's a huge frickin' alpha brain wave machine. Our brain really does have multiple gears and device form factors have a huge influence on what "gear" we are in.

Tablet based devices/computers tend to be better suited to consumption of content that requires more concentration (the content is "closer").

Gaming aside, TVs are better suited to sitting back and relaxing. Consumption of passive content if you will.

I think 1.0 will be a big success for the geek/techie crowd but in a lot of my usability studies, the vast majority of subjects I interviewed seemed to prefer a simple experience. People really are stuck in the changing channel mentality. The good news is that there are ways to address this with what will become content overload in the connected TV world.

Now I think 2.0 may show some improvement after it's approached from the perspective of passive content consumption.

Full disclosure... I work with the connected television and RIA user experience.

I have two large plasma TVs at each end of the house. Each one is connected to a PS3. I find the on screen keyboard with the PS3 to be fine in typing seaches. I wish the browser was better (Chrome?) but the Sony browser is adequate for watching YouTube videos which covers a lot of content. I also have TV through cable and a DVR and that also works fine for many shows. So, I don't see the need for Apple or Google TV.

I've been dropping thousands for years getting silent computers to hook up to my tv. It's awesome watching web videos, listening to music, etc. all from my living room theater. The one thing that has never worked was a mouse, and keyboards fall shortly behind. Fortunately, the past 3 years I've used macs and can just screen share with my laptop or iPhone to control the machine.

What's clear from this post is I'm scurvy junkie who will spend cash and make spend hours making my dreams come true. And even I balk at the concept of doing web searches and using keyboards on my living room tv. It's a mess, I don't want huge keyboards laying next to me so I can control anything.

Why does google think anyone wants the actual web on there tv? Most of us have cellphones that can search the web. If it ain't streaming video or music, why would it be on my home theater?

I'm hopeful airplay expands to the point that I can push any streaming video from my laptop or phone to my tv. I don't wanna look up data on my tv, I want to watch movies. That's the day my old MacBook or mini gets booted from the tv for a nice tiny apple tv or google tv, whoever makes it happen first.

If I'm going to spend $300 bucks for a box that hooks up to my TV and needs a keyboard to be even halfway useable, I'll buy a Dell Zino HD refurb or something to run Windows Media Center. That would be a lot more flexible than this Revue abortion.

I mean really, WTF - companies have been working on living room convergence devices for years now. Can't *somebody* get it right?

Right now having to use the onscreen keyboard is a huge PITA, why wouldn't you want something better?

Something better is great. A full sized keyboard isn't it though. I've already got limited space for remotes and controllers in my living room. Finding a spot for a full keyboard would be horrible. It also doesn't exactly lend itself to the "toss me the remote" request, without frequently causing injury to family members.

I agree that an on-screen keyboard isn't optimal either. That's why I love the fact that I can control my Apple TV with my iPod Touch. While you don't get the tactile response, I think a touchscreen is the best way to go. Something that can change with whatever screen you're currently on, and avoid having to include several dozen buttons to cover all the functions.

I give it a mildly interested 'meh'. Better than an Apple TV, maybe better than a Roku, but only if you close your eyes and ignore the price. It might make sense if you love your cable box, but if you have cut the cord like me, a Roku is still the best deal, hands down. The only thing this does that a Roku doesn't is have a web bowers which frankly doesn't interest me all that much. A Roku with netflix for a small monthly fee plus Amazon for on-demand everything else is pretty unbeatable. Toss into that a Roku has a pile of other free content, and the Google TV doesn't offer much.

Maybe in the next iteration if Google TV sinks its claws deeper into Android and builds itself as a more viable cutter I might consider throwing down for the it, but as it stands it is a few extra hundred bucks for a Roku with a web browser. Roku is still king for cord cutters, IMO.

Except Google doesn't want to make hardware (yet). They provide the GoogleTV solution to hardware manufacturers and integrators, not to the end-user. Frankly, it should be pretty easy for logitech and sony to make something intuitive, since they have much experience in home entertainment and/or peripherals. I guess no one sent them the memo that a keyboard isn't the most comfortable method to navigate an interface from your couch.

As much as I despise Apple, they know how to integrate software and hardware into one. Isn't Google not getting into hardwar manufacturering just mean this will be the TV-computer Nexus One?

I believe Google's main goal with GoogleTV is to usher their still money losing Youtube property into America's living room. The gadget companies from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and China are happy to help Google after the success of Android. The best that Google can hope for is to remake Youtube into the equivalent of a cable channel.

Who knows, maybe someday Google will start a fifth primetime network TV channel to join ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox. After all, Google lives and dies by ads, as do the TV networks. If so, Google will also need a production studio. News Corp had to buy 20th Century-Fox to really go Hollywood. Perhaps Google can buy MGM, which is always up for sale since it's always in bankruptcy.

This is about using your HD-TV to watch videos etc., from wherever you might get them (or already have them) instead of trying to setup a typical PC; it's HD-TV-centric instead of PC-centric. Either way, I wouldn't want a setup like that *without* a real keyboard (as opposed to some dorky smart-phone app). And, it's only the first step... it's going to get better and cheaper, or blown out of the market altogether (though not by anything from Apple). OK, everyone who still wants a 1st gen 'droid, raise you hand? Anyone... anyone?

In any event, I'll be waiting till the Christmas shopping season before getting something for my non-techie family members who want something simpler/better than their last-gen PCs (times 5) to watch "Internet TV". Features and ease of use are going to be more important than price (esp. for a measly hundred or two difference). This is as much on the list as any of the other options.

I think what a lot of commenters may be missing is that Google TV, like Android phones, can be offered by multiple hardware manufacturers. Obviously the success or failure of these initial offerings will have an effect on future adoption, but I wouldn't be surprised to see other consumer electronics companies coming out with a whole slew of GTV boxes with a variety of price points and feature sets.

I find myself really curious what kind of app functionality can be unlocked with these boxes, too. For instance, there are existing bittorrent apps on the Market already. Could you use your GTV box to download torrents to an external storage device? How about some sort of third (fourth?) party DVR app? Browser customization to access online video sites that might not be officially supported? Depending on how hackable these units ultimately are, they might find a big enough niche in the marketplace to justify further releases with some of those features included in the base Google TV experience.

Currently, and for the foreseeable future, I'm in "wait-and-see" mode. The product is new enough (and Google enough) that waiting for its initial clumsiness and growing pains to stop seems like a good idea to me.

Apple is a content distributor, the manufacturers of these products are not.

Simply put, Apple can charge for content later, on a platform that basically locks you to using Apple content in the first place. Its like a cell phone carrier subsidizing the cost of a phone knowing you will be paying for their services later.

I'm going to assume Google TV will be a lot more open, and you can bring in your content from pretty much anywhere.

Your still paying for it in the long run with AppleTV.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but this is clearly two distinct marketing techniques here.

Bingo. The manufacturers will need to keep prices higher on Google TV hardware because of the required minimum specs and the fact that this is their only chance for revenue. After they sell the device, only Google will be making money off the device.

That said, on a per button basis, there is no better deal than Google TV. With more than 50 @ $300, its running about $6/button. Apple TV is flying high at about $14/button.

I just don't see this device being that successful. The price point is exactly the cost AppleTV used to be and doesn't really offer much more. Here is my rationale:

Content: Most of it is coming from your premium TV services (Cable/Sat)DVR: If you have premium TV services you already have access to DVR and On Demand ProgrammingApps: Many premium TV services offer widget like applications that provide most of what you care to have on your TV.Which brings me web content: Youtube/Netflix are available on less expensive devices, Hulu as well.Finally, web browsing: This has been tried over and over again. You better have a very large screen close to a sofa to make this work. Else its an eye chart.Hardware: Good thing they have the phone apps because the keyboard on your coffee table isn't going to work. Hasn't in past offerings what makes us think this time the form factor will work?

At the end of the day it does not much more for a whole lot more money.

Apple is a content distributor, the manufacturers of these products are not.

Simply put, Apple can charge for content later, on a platform that basically locks you to using Apple content in the first place. Its like a cell phone carrier subsidizing the cost of a phone knowing you will be paying for their services later.

I'm going to assume Google TV will be a lot more open, and you can bring in your content from pretty much anywhere.

Your still paying for it in the long run with AppleTV.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but this is clearly two distinct marketing techniques here.

Roku isn't a content distributor in any important sense, and they're not charging $300 and releasing Frankenremotes.

I was really interested to see what Google could come up with, but this is just FAIL.

BTW, if they're really determined to use a keyboard, maybe someone could make a more normal sized remote and stick a Blackberry-style KB on it?

Isn't GoogleTV HDMI 1.3 complaint. Doesnt' that mean you can turn on HDMI CEC and use your TV remote to navigate through your menus. You won't need the keybaord remote until you do something more complicated. HDMI 1.3 CEC works great on my SONY PS3 Slim

This is about using your HD-TV to watch videos etc., from wherever you might get them (or already have them) instead of trying to setup a typical PC; it's HD-TV-centric instead of PC-centric.

A "PC centric" solution is going to be nothing more than some fullscreen desktop software that integrates with an IR remote and perhaps a wireless keyboard. There is nothing about this that is particularly "HDTV centric". It's still just a computer running desktop software. It's even got the keyboard.

The fact that it's ready made is certainly handy. However, it's hardly much of a divergence from what people can already do with shiny happy GUI installers.

I'd be willing to drop $300 if it could replace my TiVo completely (even if I had to add my own HD), but not for just a fancy pass-thru box and a nice wireless keyboard. I'd be willing to do $200, maybe $250 tops if I could use the KB w/ my PS3 or Xbox too. At the moment, I'm more tempted to spend my money on a PCH C-200 since I know that will play practically anything I could through at it.

Y up, every time I hear about Google.tv it makes me love my boxee htpc even more. It does everything a internet connected set top should and in a well packaged way. Add in fully open development and it's win win. I just hope they can get the market share they deserve as it is the best of the bunch as anyone who uses it can attest to.

So I guess I'm the only one that thinks that hardware actually looks cool, huh? Probably not cool enough to buy it, since I like to roll my own HTPCs, and I get more functionality out of it. But the hardware itself - it's nice looking. That's one of the more difficult aspects of building an HTPC, getting the aesthetics of the interface and the enclosure done right. Everything else is a breeze.

huh? What's with all the hate? In the same way that bluray players did google TV will get cheaper and better. That's the beauty of having multiple and competing manufacturers. This is typical of pretty much all technology in the "early adopter" area. There will be issues and it will be expensive initially.

I can remember paying $10k AU for a 42" 1080i plasma 9 years ago without HDMI input or anything. Burn-in was a huge issue at that time and without the modern screensaving tech, people were getting issues constantly. It was crap by modern standards but phenomenal at the time. A year or two later better models were in the 6k range and 5 years later much better models were under 3k. This is the price you pay for being an early adopter.

Personally I quite like the idea of the Logitch remote/keyboard although the Sony remote is horrible. I will be using the remote app myself anyway, I don't go anywhere without my phone anymore. The ideal thing of course would be a mass-produced touchscreen type remote, but that would be inherantly expensive.

The oversized remote with a tiny QWERTY keyboard looks like a huge, bulky mess, and the design has been widely panned.

First of all the "tiny" keyboard is at least 2x as big as a keyboard that comes with any phone. Second, you're complaining that the remote is big and bulky... what should Sony do? make the keyboard even tinier?

The problem is not Sony. The problem is Google. They designed a system that relies on keyboard and pointer. If someone wants to design a remote for that kind of system, the remote is going to suck.

That mini keyboard that is in the logitech setup is the Logitech Dinovo Mini. I bought one about a year or so ago and it's the perfect solution for my htpc. It's barely 1.5x as big as an iphone with a chargeable battery that lasts me about a month. I just used a core2duo I had laying around an hooked it to my tv via the vga (had to pull pin 13 to get the resolution right).

We use is daily now. Stream Netflix, hulu, youtube, TGWTG, and I threw a tuner in there to let windows Media center record away. Until I stumbled across that keyboard, I strugled to find a useful configuration. It had a steep price at 140ish but I bought two more and sold a few people an more. When my 16 year old saw it for the first time she said "this is the coolest thing I have ever seen!".

Anyways, if your turned off at the thought of a keyboard by the couch, I highly recommend a Dinovo Mini.

Edit: it's directly compatible with a PS3 via a selector switch under the battery cover

huh? What's with all the hate? In the same way that bluray players did google TV will get cheaper and better. That's the beauty of having multiple and competing manufacturers. This is typical of pretty much all technology in the "early adopter" area. There will be issues and it will be expensive initially.

Well, the thing is that we already have competing products (AppleTV, roku etc.) that are significantly cheaper. Google TV costs three times what AppleTV or Roku does. Is it three times as good? Looking at the remote, it seems to be three times as confusing at least...

And no, "multiple and competing manufacturers" is not a magic bullet that solves everything. AppleTV got cheaper, even though its a product of just one company.

And what "early adopters"? Boxes like this are not new. AppleTV was released in early 2007. Early adopters have been running these kinds of devices for years. They might not be mainstream yet, but they are past the early adopter stage. When we talk of early adopters and the like, we need to look at the product-segment as a whole, as opposed to just one vendors product. And this product-segment is not new, even though Googles offering might be.

Give the people good, practical internet services, a fast browser (chrome), chat apps (google talk), in addition to the usual stuff like image viewers etc. right along with their entertainment and they'll use nothing *but* a keyboard.

Why do any of this on a TV though? A TV has two defining traits - it is positioned for multi-person viewing (watching a movie with friends) or for limited interaction (having the TV on while you are doing something else). In other words it is not only screen size that matters. A 27" TV is used rather differently than a PC with a 27" monitor. The point about not wanting a keyboard with a TV is not driven by keyboards being difficult and confusing devices (they are not), but by the way passive/communal screens are used. No one wants to watch someone else chat or browse the internet, and one cannot do either of these things while walking in and out of the living room.

The problem is not Sony. The problem is Google. They designed a system that relies on keyboard and pointer. If someone wants to design a remote for that kind of system, the remote is going to suck.

Absolutely hit the nail on the head. Microsoft worked their asses off to make Media Center work with a remote, Apple's pretty much there now with Apple TV, Google just throws PC interface at it. This is a brain-dead badly-thought-out disaster that's probably going to kill Google TV dead. I get the feeling this is just an application for that web browser glued to Linux they're calling an OS.

What surprises me is that Sony is willing to put this junk into their expensive TV sets. I have no idea why they think this would improve their sales volume, but it should help Google to move at least some Google TVs.

What interests me is that none of the remotes shown have gone down the route of using a standard 0-9 number pad for text entry, given that every TV remote has these keys.

I've got a TalkTalk TV box and a Humax Foxsat HD satellite receiver which runs the BBC iPlayer, both of which have a search function and both of which use non-qwerty mobile phone style text entry.

I guess the difference is that these products, while having a search function, aren't designed around it. I don't regard that as a failing though. I think that if you have a product that requires enough typing for a qwerty keyboard to be beneficial, it has no place being hooked up to a TV.

I ordered 3 w/cameras and am getting 2 more sets as Xmas presents. Most of us have Android phones. I am a definite Google Fan boy. This will bring the family closer together across the country. It will be simple enough that even they will use it. I'm just a dumb electronic engineer and I'm sure even I can figure it out. All the people I am sending them to know how to use a standard keyboard and a touch pad, and have a fleet of specialized controllers scattered about the living room. But they may not have smartphones yet. They do have complex stereo stacks that this will simplify, too. Sounds like most commenters here can barely run their cell phones, let alone the laptops they seem have to been avoiding while surfing the net. The internet has never worked well from my PS3. Having a PC in the stereo cabinet has been a failure. And, of course, having to deal with Apple products in their closed garden is so offensive I simply won't sign up for their stuff. And a Cisco Umi ... you must be kidding. I prefer the quite and open ended design of this tiny product. I can't wait to get into our family's Google Apps account with this device and Google's simple 2 factor authentication. To the Clouds and beyond....